2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
7-15-2005 

# K o zlowsk i v . S c ur a P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 04-3595

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Ko zlowski v

. S c ur a" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 838. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/838NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N o. 04- 3595
T H E O D O R E K O Z L O W S K I, A ppel l ant

v. J OH N SCU RA ; RA FAEL M AR TE; ELI ZAB ETH M AR TE
APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT

FOR TH E DI STRI CT O F NEW J ERSEY D
. C
. C i vi l N o. 04- cv- 02005 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e W i l l i am J. M ar t i ni
Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y1, 2005
B efor e: R O T H , R E N D E L L , and B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed J ul y15, 2005)

OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge

T he B ankrupt cyC our ti s s ued an or deron M ay2, 2002 i m pos i ng s anct i onsT h e B an k rup tcyC o u rtissue d it s o p inion o n A p ri l 3, 20 0 2 ; th e c o rresp o n d ing o rde r, 1 how ever , w as notent er ed unt i l M ay2. 2 againstT heo do re K ozlow ski i n an am ou nt t o b e deter m i ned i n sub sequen tproceed i ng s. 1 O n D ece m ber30, 2003, t he B ankrupt cyC our ti s s ued an or derfi xi ng t he amount of
s anct i ons at$5, 800. 46, bas ed upon the att or ney s ’ fee s , expens es , and/ ordamages i ncurr ed byt he D ebt or s and t he St andi ng T rus t ee. O n Jan u ary8 , 2 0 0 4 , K o zlow sk i fi led a n o ti ce o f a p p ea l. T h e D istri ct C o u rt d ism issed the a p p ea l as “p roc ed u rall yb arred , an d an u n ti m elyatt em p t t o reli ti g ate m att ers f in a lly a d ju d ic a te d in J u d g e G a m b a rd e lla ’s M a y2 , 2 0 0 2 o rd e r.” A p p . 3
. W e w ill re v e rse . A n o rd e r im p o sin g sa n c tio n s d o e s n o t b e c o m e a p p e a lab le u n til th e c o u rt f

ix e s th e a m o u n t o f

th e s a n c tio n s . See I

n r e Je anet t e C or

p. , 832 F. 2d 43, 46 ( 3d C i r . 1987) ( hol di ng t hat“[i ] f t he s anct i ons ar e t o be an a s s es s m entof couns el fee s or expens es , t heym us tbe fi xed bef or e the or deri s fi nal and appe al abl e”)
. H er e, t he B ankrupt cyC our t ’ s s anct i ons aw ar d di d notbecome appea l abl e unt i l t he amount w as f ix e d o n D e c e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 3 . K o z lo w s k i’ s a p p e a l w a s , th e re f o re , tim e ly.